User talk:Rmcnew

Welcome!

Hello, Rmcnew, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Victuallers (talk) 09:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration request statement

Hi Rmcnew,

Could you please add a statement to the Arbitration request you have just filed? Please follow this guide for if you need any help Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration#Your statement. Thanks. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for arbitration

 +  
 + You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use— 
 + * Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Tcaudilllg; 
 + * Wikipedia:Arbitration guide. 
 +  
 + Thanks, --Rmcnew (talk) 17:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Socionics

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Socionics/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Socionics/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed 10,551 words worth of material that you have posted to the Evidence page from this case, and put it on the talk page. The instructions clearly state that a 1000 word maximum should be adhered to, and while exceeding this by a small amount might be acceptable under some circumstances, the amount of material you posted was just too much. I invite you to re-add anything you think is relevant and essential to your case onto the evidence page, but please try to keep it as succinct, on-topic, and germane to the case as possible. Regards, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I have looked at your contributions to the evidence page, and while I cannot force you to change your evidence, I would suggest taking another look at what you have written. The arbs do not need a lengthy discussion on the nature of the content dispute, what they're after is evidence of actual conduct issues, preferably supported by concrete examples and diffs. Content issues should only be discussed where they're essential to understanding the background of an actionable issue. Given that your evidence at this time does not contain this, it makes it more difficult for the arbs to do a thorough examination of the issues, which can lead to delays and prevent the speedy resolution of this case.

If you've any questions or need any assistance, please drop a note to myself or one of the other clerks and we'll be happy to assist however we can. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I'm the drafting arbitrator in this case. Please see my note here. Could you please respond there, and let me know that you understand what I've said there, and could you please state when your evidence submission will be finished, and could you please ensure it has been edited to fit the length restrictions. Carcharoth (talk) 05:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposition

Support DeLong's approach to documenting esoterism in the article, and I'll drop the assertion that you should be prohibited from adding esoteric content to it. It seems to me in that case that you'd be prohibiting yourself from painting the entire field as esoteric, making an external prohibition superfluous.

If we can persuade Wikipedia to adopt a change in policy such that esoteric forays by some scientists are not interpreted as reflective of the entire field, I think that could result in a number of other such disputes becoming non-starters. That would make Wikipedia a nicer place, probably. Tcaudilllg (talk) 06:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While Rick Delong and I agree fundamentally on specific instances that esotericism is present in socionics theory, I don't totally agree with his personal stance and I don't think your claims are significant enough to have much force in light of verifiable sources that meet wikipedias standards, that testify to a degree of esotericism in socionics theory. On the other hand I am content with the way wikipedia socionics article is at this moment and hope it stays this way. However I would agree that Socionics has not been entirely saturated with open applications of esotericism. I think a different approach is required to relay this information on wikipedia. --Rmcnew (talk) 17:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to the concensus on reliable sources and I'll drop the case against you on arbcom --Rmcnew (talk) 16:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a brief note here. I'm aware of the above discussion, and will be entering it into evidence. But can you both please stop the horse-trading and plea bargaining here? You both need to work to Wikipedia's guidelines and policies, and learn to work with other editors, not trade arbitration sanctions in return for agreeing to a consensus. That is unacceptable and not how Wikipedia works. Carcharoth (talk) 06:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages posts and Socionics case

A further note in addition to the one above about the Socionics arbitration case. I've posted here, and on the talk pages of the two parties (one of which is you). Rmcnew, can you please in future post to the case talk pages, or to my talk page if urgent, rather than to multiple arbitrators? And if you do post to user talk pages, please try and post at the bottom, not the top. I should have proposals up on the workshop soon, but need to review the new evidence. I am now going to leave a note for Tcaudilllg about what is appropriate to post and say in evidence, but please can you (as I said above) make sure that your evidence section is within the limits set in the guidelines. Carcharoth (talk) 06:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rmcnew, I've made a few minor refactors of the evidence that you've presented, as well as moving some material that, while possibly helpful, off to an archive. I have a question about your "Exhibit D" - from which (talk?) page does this particular list come from? It may be more helpful to link directly to a revision that has this list in it, rather than doing a straight copy and paste, as that removes any possible doubt about tampering, and it'll also get your presentation in well under the 1000 word limit. Regards, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Questions for the parties (Socionics arbitration case)

Questions have been posed here. Could the parties please answer the questions by Sunday evening. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 09:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Socionics case update

Please see here for the latest on the Socionics case. Please comment on what has been proposed so far, in the sections provided. Carcharoth (talk) 12:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have completed my proposed decision. Previous sections have been updated here. Findings on your conduct are here. Findings on Tcaudilllg's conduct are here. Further proposed remedies are here. I am notifying both parties (including you), and the arbitrators. I intend to move this case to full voting tomorrow (Sunday). If you would like more time to respond to the findings, or to comment on the workshop sections, please go to the workshop talk page and comment in the section I will be creating there. Carcharoth (talk) 13:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Socionics

This arbitration case has been closed, and the final decision may be viewed at the link above.

Editors of articles related to the topic of socionics are reminded to be civil and seek consensus whenever possible. Editors are encouraged to seek dispute resolution assistance as needed.
Rmcnew (talk · contribs) and Tcaudilllg (talk · contribs) are indefinitely topic banned from all Socionics-related topics, pages, and discussions, broadly construed.
Rmcnew (talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of six months.
Tcaudilllg (talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of twelve months.
Users not previously involved in Socionics and Socionics-related articles are asked to give attention to any remaining issues with the articles, including the reliability of sources used. Users should carefully review the articles for adherence to Wikipedia policies and address any perceived or discovered deficiencies. This is not a finding that the articles are or are not satisfactory in their present form, but an urging that independent members of the community examine the matter in light of the case. Participation from uninvolved editors fluent in the Russian language would be especially helpful.

For the Arbitration Committee, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this

time to do some cleanup

Now all that is done, gone and overwith ... time to clean up this area.

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Alana Bridgewater for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Alana Bridgewater is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alana Bridgewater until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Kinu ^t/_c 04:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Socion.PNG

The file File:Socion.PNG has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Victor Gulenko

The article Victor Gulenko has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fail to meet notability guideline for biographies. The article cannot be attributed to reliable sources. Also see: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Socionics

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Renat 00:54, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Alexander Bukalov

The article Alexander Bukalov has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fail to meet notability guideline for biographies. The article cannot be attributed to reliable sources. All sources are connected with the subject. The only properly sourced thing here is the second lead sentence. Also see: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Socionics. Especially the articles review part.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Renat 01:16, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Socionics(CIT)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Socionics(CIT) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 20#Socionics(CIT) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 01:01, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some barnstars for you :)

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		You are a anti-vandalist

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		You are great at stopping vandalism

		The Anti-Vandalism Ninja Barnstar
		You are a anti-vandalist ninja. Keep up the good work!

From @BettyBots, spreading encouragement BettyBots (talk) 03:08, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]